opening stalement in a discussion that needs careful consideration by stands in marked contrast to the smug self-salislied tones of David Widgery 's letter Socialist The article can be welcomed for rwo reasons: a) that it acknowledges the demobilisation of the working class since 1975, and b) attempts to come to berins with the crisis of the revolutionary left, The recognition of these two tacis is the tirst step Tace tola Tobn Rost wiele Ros's article could, therefore, be the first step along the road to reality and effecshould be seen in the context of this overall appreciation and not as secking points of disagreement, rather they should be scen as an attemptat dialogue.
VALID Ross locates the change in the stuBton ot Botain relace to 1 orking class in the period late 197 hrough 1975, and I feel that this is; valid estimate. However, I am not surethat heis correct when he argues that this demobilisation, and later defeats of individual struggles, wa not becuuse of the -strenyth bourgebis institutions but because of the betrayals (TETOFTEI burcsucracy. It secuns to me that this question of bourgeois ideology and the institutions which mediate tl and the insitutiens Moreover, I reel there is an clement Lacking in his accoant of the year 1974. All. of these questions ure Finked.
What the article stresses in relation to 1974 was the very real victory of the minets in toppling the Heath Goretementandihe winningof their wape claim. However, tacking is the recognition of another and equally important clement in LauT SHIman sc TRr TC-mereCE. of a large Liberal vote. In the February 1974 clection the Labour Party actually received less votes than in the 1970 clection, This was the paradox of February 1974, The polarisation of the classes — which began as far back as 1966 - - seemed to have reached its height in carly 1974, and to have real possibilities for a working class victory, hut in fact in clectoral terms it showed the beginoing of the dissipation of this polarisation. The emergence of the large1 Theralvote, plus the rise of the nati malsts in Scotand and Wales indicated the great instability of the bourgews order. And these event have to be set on top ef the batumerne sigb ly lad a read takeu from huge sections of the working class in militant industrial strugele, Left NGUĞI DEFENCE holding a public mesting on 21 March mimice s0 Protist at the impr anndetalle rom Cem Campsell PaTels boles teamielcura uca BELT & BRACES Roadsson CAPITAL AN Mandel's •TLUUCHUN ILO Capital and of Tons So, what we had was not the clear EUROUOW ORELLASTUEL for - seemingly- easy victory, but a paradoxical one of great militancy by large sections of the working class coupled with large soctions of th population backing away from boch Labour and Tory Parties. This, alongside of the emerzence of the National Front asa nutional political force, indicated the dis-egushbrium of thesystem at that point.
apparent in H- Tornon namher ot ultra-riht cara-mutar! organisations during 1974, a feature almost wholly lacking in Britain for However, Ross says that bourgeois institutions were not strong ar that period, but he correct, since le leaves cur accountthe Labour Government. To talk about the betrayal of the reformist bureauctacy makes it appear as some sort of deus machina which arriver in the nick of Lune iO pinE Inc chestnuts out of the fire. The reality IUS-LIC LAMUR OUNAIE WREM part of the bourgeois institutions.
something outsideof then.
The queston nere is why were the reformist bureaucrats demohilise the working 1974/757 And, surely, this is where the effect of bourgeois arises. For real, and substantive victories of the working class to have reselted fron the situation in carly 1974 ie wouldhavebeen tecemary for a differemt working ciass Jeadersh.p FOR AFRICA naparger eligran at falcet.
Run up le subservent lo borecos ideoloey Instability in the system, CWHS alSd of a best bet only formally of derelacr usli haurgegisic's thana Toryone.
able to do able to ideology bourgeoisideologs:
in іс репоа IHNS SECHHmn H I 451201 1.5:-4.30 on 16 Manch al 81 Anta BADANE MULILE DOILEMT commitmsc: 4 nocessily.
sality an adastge Win to he in postion, one that was not tion Given the actual relationship of forces at that time there were only Bricish two poss ble outcones to the general either a Labour government which would derail the industrial maltancy of the working class, or the establishmen: bl some sort of aurhoritariar regime WICI WODE RAVE GISCASWu parlamentary niceties. Far fracn the bourgeoisie not having confidence in cause of the ability of' a Labour government to carry out thetask of de-railment, It was its first bet because it understood that in the circunistances if was its This situation had its ronts in the political changes in Britain going back to 1966, when the Lahour of sectarapism Government was, and was seento be. the most clear sighted and coberent The Fasco of the Heath Government andreated that in the present period a into Labour government can serse the TETE SUL COUBE USC ERC why is it able to function as except to say such? Not merely hecause it betrays workers" stroggles, hat because it is so and still relain its ideological hald on the vast majority of the working class. It is able to do thisbecausetbe working class itself is still — in the main — domucated by Ross, in this sense, has only gone haif way to mappiag out thesicuation in 1974. Hourgeos hegemony which hadbegunto be wenkened, especially 1972-74. WES L F.. LITHO LTD, 325/P Upper Stree exe ene TRUETE the managerse the Roose adamess bands e aco Detalis io be hegemony iw mediated through a whole series of insticucions. but it would he wrong to concentrate a discussion upon only some of theat. What we have to understand is the cocality and the way that some insitutionsarerothe fore at one tinte while ar others different ones become John Ross reduces this whole complex question to one of the working clas leaders being bouch alf. This Is too simplistic almost a mirror image of chose who argue that bourgeos Institutions are too powerful to be defeated, Ross s* Every single capitalit policy siace 1974 has been quite explicitly frumed on the issumption that the NUM cannot be defeated in stroggle and Its leadership must be Thistypeof argumentation reduces thequeshonto oncol bad or weak Implicit is that good 'strong" men mast be put in the place of the cristing caders. 1 am sure that on reflection John Ross will see the trap he has laid for himseir.
The second part of thearticle in fact beems to recognise procisely the crucial importance of the dominabourgeois ideology Moreover, John Ross lays his finger an one of themost wearisome aspects Marxism, i.e. sectanansso. This is scen as bein; partially rooted in the attitude o Looking atter the httic tatnes and the higthings will look after themselves" Hispbnlanon trom Mart, however must he understood in the opposite sense to that interred in the article. The httle thiags" asentality is not che sectarianisa: but is its product We have to look much deper for the roots of sectarianism than John Ross allows for. raising of small differences to the level of big ones is not the cause of sectarianism bulilseffect John Roos well descrites the result democratic discussion within the left groups but fails to account for it. He conflates a description of the discase with an explanation. I will not attempt to go all the ramifications of this problemu here (I have dealt with it at leagth in Marxism, Method and Revolution" in Intersention No. 1)
that education and democratie discussion are inseparable. The ability of the 'leaders" of Tar lett sects to maistain their grip depends to a large extent upon the acceptanccof a velgarisod version of Markism by many of their followers. In this respect it is symptomatie of the crisisof thelef chat recently there has been a proliferation of grougs, most of them being formed by splits Even more indicative is that there are langs numbers of unattached people wihc HL-HAS TCHUHENE SELE Eoçar EAST LONDON SeciEst groups either stagnate or deline. Unforunately, John Ross's preserption of united socialist activity does not completely fil the bal, Such united activice can only be brouchr about on the basis o1 aDl! understanding of what are the "hig issues". Cencine wity can only te roughi abour by real dialogue hetween varlous current-on the left, one thal refuses to be bound by the shibbolerhs of the past John Ross has nade several steps forware in this respoct, and we should all the willing to participute in the discussion so niciated. Howerer participátion in discussion does not automatically lead to agreement. sontetimes it clarifies the nature of the disagreements. Such ciacifications are, however, necessacy step on the roac to anity. No one should be demgrated beceuse they do nor agrec wilh ceraia propositions. In the final amalysis oniy the working class itself can lend substance to ans particular propositions by actua.is ing them in struggle -ONDRUS posils that united action of revolutionaries and warking Tor a united revolumonary organisacion isn't an 'obsracie to building the party bura viral part of taking forward the stroggle of the working class One can certalnly agroc with such sepciments, howaver they in turn raise problems, Firsts, implicit in such a starement is that building the party is today on the svenda, whereas many, like myself feel thai we are onls in the preparatory sragcs of such a venture. i.e. of building a cadre for sech a party. The two ane not separated by an impenetrable wall, yer they do constitate quite distinct task;.
Secondly, I for one would question the asumptione/building the party.
лот a semantic difference. If — as the recent USFI resolution on socialis democracy does - we recegnise the need for more than one workers" parly after poses the question will not this feed subst helaresush an overchee0? theanswer wyes, thenthe question of TECU TUL WULKAN BUNS new and compelling logic If there is than workers" involved in strugeles to overthrow capitaliem, it implies that the united front becomes a strategic necessity and nor atactical gambit.
These are some of the issues that need io be dealt in aby discussion about left uniy if we are te leave the old shibbaleths behind This in no way umplies that such discussoms should not take in currenl probiems, or bas-to-day quesciens, rather the resolution of the small problems will come abou: by a thorough understanding of the Ds quesounacco длист.
KEN TARBUCK is wn editor of the Markist magazine IntervenROADGANG (Ecciaist Faminis aire ротрапут reguites ека HO- P sirar0 195735 Pule Miu DRiN e SasH
black workers fionaries in perspectives for left unity.
These approach should be made to these an indepenac secon cr toe worku class cannot be ignored by revoluGEWIRE TUD DE RAGHIB AHSAN (Birminghum] Are you prepared to stay in a new organisation which doen't adopt your views and refuses to adhere to the Fourth International. Or are you just planning a raid to eliminate ibe LEERSS TAAIHE DU MEEDELEN read the response of the editorial board to enesc quesnoos Keith Smith (Binningham) basis. While the League's positions are limited improved, the fact that they uniled 1o a very specific targe: (ch National Front) is no wrong. 1 believe it was Frotsky who said we should be prepared to unite with the devil himself if it belped build action agninst the fascists.
Although some of the and could be which Necessaris technology operation League's SOCIALIST CHALLENGE 18 arch, 1978 page 14 Jackets (the premier military unit) was killed when his Gazelle helicopter according CHINON magazine is the word" in - was chot down int an reminiscent of INL.F operations in Vietnam.
Since then there have been number of direct attacks on the "Security forces", in some of which the
----- pull-quotes -----
London wt (maar dosle Sr Tabol BOMASTE e Telat tir